Eternal life is earned by believing in absurdly outrageous rumors about gods who are appeased by blood sacrifices?

Sorry Cowboy, that doesn't work for me.

I see a fundamental problem in the above statements. Whoever wrote this seems to think that they have a really good grasp on "reality".

They say, "Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live"

This implies that the author of these words believes that his or her own perception of reality is indeed "the one in which we live".

However, the truth is that there does not exist a well-defined and well-known secular reality. That very assumption right there is a mistaken assumption.

Science most certainly doesn't have a clear well-defined understanding of "reality". On the contrary, modern scientists today are toying with a very larger scope of potential models for reality. Most of these models include truly bizarre things, like unseen hidden dimensions, and potentially forces as well. In fact, scientists are seeking a Higgs field that they have no clue even exists in "reality". They are proposing things such a multi-verses, instead of a single universe. There is much that they do not understand about the nature of "reality".

Therefore to even speak in terms of "reason" being associated with some type of well-defined "reality" is a totally misguided idea in its own right.

There is no clear-cut well-defined secular reality to believe in.

Some fairly prominent scientists are actually taking quite seriously the idea that our universe may very well be some sort of computer-generated holographic reality. They even have mathematical models that explain how this could potentially be accomplished within the laws of known physics.

The entanglement recognized by Quantum Mechanics also opens a huge door to very strange non-local realities that are far different from what many secularists might consider to be "reasonable" based on conventional ideas of physics they are used to thinking about. A lot of these people don't even truly appreciate the far-reaching implications of Quantum Mechanics.

Scientists who are in-the-know, in terms of information science, and principles of Quantum Mechanics, recognize that the entire universe may not be "physical" at all, but rather it's may actually be based purely on "information".

According to Quantum Mechanics, "information" permeates all of space. Even the most empty voids of complete vacuum are teaming with quantum information that actually has physically measurable affects, yet it has no concrete physical properties that we normally associate with "physical reality".

Ghosts exist, in things like Dark Energy. Matter that has a gravitation affect on the universe, yet is quite 'ghost-like' in terms of any other physical properties.

The very notion that there exists a "Reasonable Reality", versus a hypothetical "Mystical Reality", it truly a non-supportable idea.

We simply do not have a concrete understanding of "Reality" to even speak in terms of a "Reasonable Reality".

So when someone says something like, "Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live"

What are they talking about?

Just what "reality" do they think we live in?

Do they have a concrete explanation for "Reality".

I don't think so.

So the whole statement becomes meaningless.

"Other than the one in which we live"?

And which one would that be?

The very idea that someone thinks they know what constitutes reality is a folly right there.

Well, not only that, but look at the reason he's supposedly going to kill the vast majority of them.

Simply because they didn't believe in outrageous tales!

Where is there any morality in that?

This deity would need to be the most immoral entity that ever existed.

I read all about God's love in the Old Testament.

For God so loved the world that he drowned everyone, including little babies.

With a love like that, who needs hate?

I never said he did. You claim that God hates "homosexuality", not homosexuals.

Supposedly homosexuality is the "sin" and God hates sin, not the sinners.

But not to worry because the blood of Jesus can easily wash away homosexuality. And God will replace the heart of the homosexual with a heart that prefers male-chauvinism instead.

It will all come out in the wash.

In the meantime, don't forget to study up on Islam as it will most likely be the dominant world religion in the not-to-distant future.

This isn't in line with what you actually PREACH.

You PREACH that in order to have a relationship with God a person must OBEY God. And according to you that means recognizing Jesus as God and obeying the teachings of Jesus PLUS all the other Christian religious bigotries that Christians like yourself hold out in Jesus' name (like the idea that God hates homosexuality, etc.)

Now you're claiming that no one knows who has a relationship with God.

Well, if that's true, then you could have no clue whether someone who doesn't believe in Jesus or the Bible at all could have relationship with God because you can have no way of knowing.

You PREACH that people are "rejecting God", or "turning away from God", or refusing to LISTEN to the "Word of God" if they reject the Bible.

So your PREACHING doesn't match your claims here.

It's that's simple.



No, that's clearly not true at all. We already see this as plain as the nose on our face. Different Christian denominations and beliefs do not get along with each other.

In fact, Catholics and Protestants often don't even consider the others to even be "Christians". It's a highly bigoted religion that is often quite bigoted against it's own self.

I've often said that if the whole world were converted to Christianity that would only be the very beginning of the real holy wars. As soon as they realized that there was no one left to convert to "Christianity" they'd immediately start pointing fingers at each other proclaiming that only their form of Christianity is the "True Christianity", and all the other denominations are false.

That's the nature of the beast.

There could never be a harmonious Christianity ever. The scriptures that it's based on are far too ambiguous to ever be agreed on by everyone, and so it's basically impossible to have a consistent Christianity.

Catholicism falling out of protesting Protestants away from "The Body of Christ" which is the Catholic Church, is all the proof we need.

It's a done deal.

Proven historically beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Christianity doesn't have a prayer in the world of ever becoming the single world religion. It never had that potential, and never will.

That very delusion and quest is often what makes various factions of this religion so dangerous. They actually STRIVE to achieve that goal.

In fact, I was listening to a conversation about this on NPR radio. With the advent of the Internet Christian proselytizing organizations have sprung up everywhere. And they are even in competition with each other.

These Christian proselytizing camps are actually focusing on proselyting to the Arab countries with the dream of converting Muslims to Christianity. Just as few years ago they thought they had the upper hand and it would just be a matter of time because the Christians had the upper hand in technology.

But now that is changing. China and Russia are siding with the Muslims and arming them with Internet technologies to fight back. Now it appears that the Christians are going to lose that proselytizing war and that the Muslims are actually going to spread Islam at a far faster rate that the Christians can hope to compete with.

It's become and "information proselytizing war".

And the current prediction is that the Muslims will ultimately win.

So you better start studying up on Islam.

Well, the proof is in the pudding.None of these people who seem to think that they are 'born again' can ever agree with each other. So clearly they don't "see" what they think they see.

The myriad of different denominations of Christianity is living proof that all of these religious people who think they are 'seeing' something are merely kidding themselves.

And look at what it ultimately leads too?

People convincing themselves that they have been 'drawn to God' whilst other people have been 'left in the dark'.

That is the very makings of religious prejudices and bigotries, etc.

"We are enlightened by God and you are not."

That's precisely the kind of arrogance that these types of religious beliefs lead to.

This is why they become so obnoxious and politically dangerous.

We end up with cultures that have radically different beliefs each proclaiming they they hold the copyright on God.

The Muslims think they own God.
The Christians think they own God.

And all the other meek religions of the world that just want to worship God abstractly without claiming township of God have to put up with the extreme arrogance of the Muslims and Christians claiming that they hold the only patent rights on God.

And the poor atheists have to sit on the sidelines and watch all this religious bigotry filling the world with hatred in the name of God, when if everyone would become an atheist we could finally live in peace.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

I don't see where this apologist's views should cause me to change my views. Nor do I see where they address any of the concerns that I bought up.

Allow me to address these issues:


The Apologist's Claims:


The apologist claims the following:

"Finally, we begin to discern new desires which He has created within us. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, to obey Him and to walk in the “newness of life"

He places within us a new heart that inclines toward him?

What could that possibly mean? What was wrong with our original heart?

I have huge problems with these kinds of apologetic explanations. From my perspective they are nothing more than extreme desperation on the part of apologists to try to make sense of nonsense.

What could this explanation possibly imply?

First of, if God has to change the "heart" of a person in incline with God what could that mean other than he is basically turning the person into a puppet and changing their entire point of view.

For example, what could that mean for me?

God would have to say, "Ok Abra, you don't like men ruling over women, and you don't care for the use of violence and punishments to be the basis of solutions of problems, and you have a problem with the way I communicate with my creation? No problem! I'll just transform you into someone who is inclined to agree with all these things."

Then God waves his magic heart wand and I am transformed into a person who is inclined to agree with his way of doing things.

Sure sounds like God would be doing nothing more than making me into a puppet who now agrees with him and I no longer have any values of my own.

Secondly, if this God seeks to change people's hearts so that they are incline to agree with him, (thus making them into puppets), then why even both with the whole salvation scam in the first place? Why not just create a species of puppets who are inclined to agree with God from the get-go?

~~~~

I mean, seriously. This apologetic "explanation" does nothing for me at all. All this guy is doing is creating even more contradictions that don't solve a single thing, IMHO.

There is nothing in that apologetic explanation that does anything for me at all.

~~~~

From my perspective this would be like people objecting to the behavior of Aldolf Hitler. And Hitler supporters saying to them, well don't worry, once Hitler decides to take you on he will transform you into someone who will be inclined to totally agree with everything he does.

That's supposed to be an inviting apologetic argument?

I don't see it.

I always ask, "Who would a God be more impressed with? A religious person who does good things because they trying to please a God? Or an atheist who does good things because it's simply who they are?"

I mean, the same thing could be asked of a parent and child.

Would you be more proud of a child who does goods things simply because they are trying to impressing you? Or would you be more proud of a child who does things because it's who they really are?

It seems to me that a God who created humans would be far more impressed by good atheistic than by good religious people.

There's always the question too: "Would good religious people remain good if they were too suddenly lose their belief in a God"

I've met far too many religious people (especially strong proselytizers of religion) who proclaim that if there is no God there would be no reason to have moral values!

Like duh?

So without a God morality suddenly has no value?

What "Word" are you talking about?

You say: "Hearing the Word then brings forth FAITH to Believe.

But we see countless examples of people who are well-versed in the biblical scriptures who do not believe they are the word of any God.

I've explained myself countless times over, two very important things concerning FAITH and the biblical cannon.



1. I most certainly see no reason to believe these stories as they are written verbatim.


How would that equate hearing the word brings forth faith?

I've heard it. It hasn't cause me to believe, nor has it caused me to even want to place faith in it, which is my next point.


2. Even if I thought the stories were true it wouldn't be because I wanted to place FAITH in them. On the contrary, the only way I would accept these stories as being true is if I felt there was no other choice.


So again, having heard the stories wouldn't case me to want to have FAITH in them even if I thought they were true.

If I was convinced that the biblical stories were true simply because I felt there was overwhelming evidence for them, or something along those lines, I would still be thoroughly depressed and disappointed that our creator had created such a nightmare.

~~~~~

I mean, seriously MorningSong. If I thought these stories were true and I had no choice but to believe them. Then the best I could do is to offer to accept Jesus as my 'savior' NOT out of love for this God, but simply because that would appear to be the only way to escape condemnation and potential everlasting punishment.

In fact, if I thought these stories were true, and I also believe that this God was simply offering to become his eternal servant or simply face a peaceful spiritual death of ceasing to exist, then I would be incline to choose the latter.

Seriously, I would.

Especially if this could be done in a polite way without this God getting all bent out of shape because I'm not interested in becoming his eternal servant and doing everything he says.

I mean think about it for a moment MorningSong.

This biblical cannon has God creating woman as an afterthought. He also then curses women with sorrowful conception and childbirth, and proclaims that they will forever be ruled over by their husbands.

I'm already not happy with an entity who thinks like this and solves his problems in this way. So even if the biblical cannon were true, that wouldn't change. I'd still be faced with a God that I'm not happy with.

If this God feels this way about things on Earth, then he probably also feels the same way about things in his Heaven. Why should I think that he would behave any differently there?

According to this cannon, he seems to solve all his problems in crude and violent ways. Do I really want to serve a supreme being who solves all his problems via violent crude and rude means?

Like I say, if this is typical of his behavior why should I think he would be any different in the way he rules his Heaven?

This is all I have to go by. I have no choice but see the behaviors being attributed to him in the Bible as being representative of what this God is actually like.

He has this problem where his creation isn't doing as he would like them to do. From my perspective, as far as I can tell from reading this cannon of stories, his REAL PROBLEM is lack of communication and good mentoring.

But instead of addressing this fundamental basic problem he decides to send his son to be butchered on a pole to become the "Symbol of Salvation" and the only way to attain the grace and love of this God is to CONDONE that this horrific violent act was done on your behalf!

If you refuse to accept this and condone it, then pee on you, you'll be cast into eternal damnation.

Do I really want to worship and serve a God like this?

No, I don't.

If could just politely ask to be excused into the oblivion of non-existence, that would gladly choose that fate over having to agree with this God and his totally violent, rude, and crude ways of dealing with things.

If this God doesn't have the wisdom to solve his problems via supreme mentoring skills, and through perfectly crystal clear communication, then to be perfectly honest with you MorningSong, I would view this God as being extremely dangerous to be around.

In short, I could never TRUST this God to do the right thing.

~~~~

In my humble opinion, MorningSong. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone should have to GUESS whether or not a supreme creator exists. Or merely have "FAITH" that one might exist.

I see absolutely no value in that at all. Especially if this creator supposedly wants to have a relationship with people and wants them to do as he says.

He should just show up, and be omnipresent FOR REAL. No question at all whether or not this God exists.

Then if someone wants to be like Satan and challenge this God's authority, more power to them. Let them have it out with God.

But this nonsense of trying to make out like everyone is automatically taking that stance with this God is utter nonsense.

Disbelief an invisible God does not constitute rebellion.

And reading the biblical cannon has neither convinced me that it has merit, nor has it inspired me to want to serve this God.

On the contrary, it has only served to convince me that even if the stories are true, I would much prefer to simply cease to exist than to serve this God.

I don't personally approve of the way this God deals with his creation and with the problems he has with his creation.

That's my truth.

That's a very beautiful romantic tale, especially for lovers to ponder.

Unfortunately through the eyes of a single person who would love to have a lover, but for reasons that seem to be far beyond their control and this dream doesn't appear to be within reach, this kind of story only serves to remind them that a large part of their heart will forever be missing.

Of course, there probably is a lot of truth in that.

Just the same, the tale doesn't appear to be so 'romantic' when it appears to their eyes that all the roses have been picked and only thorns remain.

That's certainly an interesting take on Christianity MorningSong.

Of course, if this interpretation of the religion is correct. Then proselytizing and evangelizing the religions is totally misplaced.

The very idea that someone could choose to turn to God on their own would be a totally unacceptable idea. Only God could draw them in. It could never be their decision to turn to God first.

That pretty much flies in the face of Christian evangelism where the preachers are asking everyone to "Come to God", and acting like as if it's a FREE WILL choice that the individual person must make.

To hold out that only God can draw them in, and that no man can choose to believe in God without God taking action first, is the absolute complete opposite of Cowboy's evangelical agenda to convince everyone that it's entirely up to them to choose to acknowledge and obey this God.

So here we are getting extremely contradicting views from two different people who both claim to understand what these scriptures are trying to say.

~~~~~

This only serves to verify that even the people who think they understand these scriptures clearly don't. At least some of them don't, and that begs the question, "Who truly understands these things and who doesn't?"

Moreover it begs the question, "If even devout believers can't agree on what their religion is about, then how could the scriptures that their religion is based on possibly be coherent?"

~~~~~~

I still feel that the bottom line reveals the absolute truth.

~~~~~~


If a person does not believe that they have made a conscious free will choice to reject their creator.

And a particular religion claim that they are making such a free will choice.

Then clearly there's either something drastically wrong with the religion, or there is something drastically wrong with the concept of "free will".



You can't very well be making a "free will decision" without even being aware that you are making it. There would be nothing "free" about that.

Even ignorance or misunderstanding could not be used to used to support that idea. Especially when it supposedly concerns the rejection of an all-powerful creator. If a person wasn't making a conscious "free will choice" knowingly, but instead was just mistakenly ignorant due to some failing of their intellect, or whatever. That very fact could only be the fault of the creator for not having given the person the intelligence and knowledge required to make a well-informed decision.

~~~~~

And 'well-informed', is the key issue here.

The Bible cannot possible be held up as a collection of documents that has 'well-informed' anyone.

Why? Well, for the very obvious reason that no two people can even agree on what it has to say. The Jews and Muslims don't even believe that Jesus was the promised messiah or the son of God.

The Christians who do accept the writings of the New Testament to be a valid part of the Bible don't even agree with each other on what the story is actually trying to say.

And then we have Buddhish, Atheists, Wiccans, Hindus, etc, who don't even believe in anything the ancient Hebrews had to say. They all probably view the Hebrews God-myths to be not all that much different from the Greek God-myths.

I have personally looked at the Abrahamic religion over the course of my life and I'm totally unconvinced that it represents the words and directives of any all-wise supreme creator. In fact, as I'm sure you are well aware, I'm totally convinced that it's definitely not the thoughts, actions, and directives of some all-wise supernatural being.

And clearly there are a lot of brilliant minds who feel the same way. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein (two of the greatest minds in all of humanity) both reject the Hebrew stories as being totally unbelievable and without merit.

Albert Einstein actually agrees with my point of view that Eastern Mysticism is a far more reasonable approach to viewing spirituality. And he specifically points to Buddhism as his reference for Eastern Mysticism.

~~~~~

Still, I wish more Christians believed like you, and would take a stronger stand against the hardcore fundamentalists like Cowboy who continually try to convince people that they are rejecting God if they fail to believe in Christianity.

It is solely that aspect of Christianity that I speak out against.

It's the intrusive aspect of religious proselytizing and evangelizing that I find so objectionable in terms of being socially disruptive and destructive.

Anytime we end up having people running around accusing everyone of being sinners who are willfully making a "FREE WILL CHOICE" to reject the creator of humanity and join forces with a demonic fallen idiot, that's going to be the source of animosity, disrespect, and social tension.

Nothing good can come from of that kind of "accusatory" approach to proselytizing religion.

That is the problem with these kinds of religions right there.

~~~~~

If everyone believed like you, MorningSong, that only God can call people in and no one could possibly make their own free will choice to simply believe in God on their own, then the very idea of proselytizing or evangelizing the religion would be senseless.

Just leave it up to God to call people in when he's ready. No need for preachers, or evangelists, or anything like that.

That's the complete opposite of accusatory evangelism where everyone is being accused of making their own free will choice to reject God.

The word "LORD" is used all through the Old Testament. The word "LORD" does not refer to Jesus in the Old Testament. That's just the word they used for "God".





I don't care what this verse says. The FACT of the matter is that he totally disagreed with the immoral teachings of the Old Testament and replaced them with sane teachings.

Besides, why should anyone believe Matthew?

This is just hearsay rumors anyway. It's actually a lie on the part of Matthew to be quoting Jesus like that. There is absolutely no way that Matthew could have preserved every verbatim word that Jesus ever spoke. That is unrealistic right there.

Matthew is just claiming that Jesus might have said something along those lines. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. We can never know.

Moreover, if Jesus didn't come to "destroy" the law then the old laws would still be in effect. Otherwise he would have "destroyed" them by replacing them.

He also supposedly said:

Matthew 5:18

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So there you go. Untill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus didn't write anything down. And the New Testament certainly hadn't yet been written when Jesus was supposedly speaking these words. Therefore, if Jesus was referring to written laws he could have only been referring to the Torah. Jots and tittles refer to written words.

~~~~~

Moreover, if you accept these writings as they are actually written here, then you've got a huge contradiction, because Jesus did indeed change the laws. He rejected the previous law that God had people judging each other and stoning sinners to death. He also rejected the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and instead he taught to forgive and turn the other cheek.

So actually you've just pointed out some gross contradictions in these stories.

That's all you've done here.

What?

Because the bible is being held up by Christians as being the "Word" of the creator of all humanity. They constantly proclaim that "All men are sinners! All have fallen short of the glory of the creator, and all men must accept that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the creator of all humanity. And failure to accept this will not only supposedly result in the spiritual death of the non-believer of these claims, but the Christians will also socially brand such people as having "rejected God" and refuse to "obey God", blah, blah, blah.

Who are you kidding Cowboy?

You go around making these very accusations yourself.

Here you just did it in your previous post:


You just personally made a blatant accusation toward "Every single other person that has or ever will walk this Earth"

Well, I got news for you bud. I walk on this Earth. So you are making blatant accusations about me personally.

Don't think for one second that you aren't.

And I don't care if you want to claim that "You personally" aren't making these accusations, but rather a religion is making them".

That's perfectly find with me. In fact, that's precisely what I'm addressing. The very RELIGION that makes these outrageous claims toward everyone. Including me.

That gives me the right to join in conversations about "Christianity".

It's not required to be a "believer" in Christianity in order to address the claims and accusations that this religion makes toward all of humanity

~~~~~

As a human being, I reject these claims as being nothing more than superstitious rumors, or potentially the outright underhanded unethical brainwashing scam of ancient men whose purpose was to create a religion that could be used to get people under the thumb of the church to gain political power in the name of religion.

That is a very real concern Cowboy.

~~~~~

I voice my views and opinions on this matter because I feel it's important.

You might think that when I call this religion 'Emotional Terrorism' that I'm just trying to insult it, or something superficial like that.

But no, Cowboy, I'm dead serious.

If this religion is indeed a scam deviously created by men thousands of years ago, then it has indeed been a very hateful and nasty deed played on humanity.

~~~~

Sure Cowboy, I'll be the first to agree with you on the high moral standard that Jesus himself supposedly stood for.

However, as soon as Jesus is being held up as a weapon to belittle, degrade and insult people for not climbing on board a religion that itself supports far greater bigotries and hypocrisies than even the Pharisees were guilty of, then I will indeed speak out against it.

You don't hold up Jesus and praise Jesus.

Not in the slightest. You USE Jesus as an excuse to support the whole biblical cannon and the whole Christian theological monster.

That's where I totally leave you in the dust.

I want absolute no parts of using Jesus to spread religious bigotry and hatred toward non-believers.

As far as I'm concerned that's what makes this religion so hateful.

Hell's bells, if Christianity was truly about Jesus and the things he taught it could potentially be a really great religion. But it's not about the teachings of Jesus AT ALL. It's entirely about uses Jesus as a battering ram to shove bigotries from the Old Testament and other parts of the New Testament down people's throats in the name of Jesus!

Christianity is about becoming as hypocritical as the Pharisees who were ultimately responsible for having Jesus nailed to a pole.

Christianity is the antithesis of Jesus, IMHO.

Especially in the hands of Christian fundamentalists who basically go around insinuating that anyone who refuses to climb on board the Christian Bigotry Wagon in Jesus' name is "out to lunch with Satan".

That's utter hogwash.

It's basically hateful emotional terrorism and social execution of anyone who refuses to support the bigotry wagon in Jesus' name.

~~~~~

That's how I view it Cowboy.

You really should listen to MorningSong.

There are righteous ways of evangelizing Christianity. And if Christianity were truly evangelized in righteous ways it wouldn't be emotional terrorism, or even bother anyone. Like Jesus Taught a righteous Christian evangelist would meekly walk away from anyone who is not interested in hearing what the evangelist has to offer. Righteous evangelists would seek out people who are interested in learning about Jesus, etc.

The emotional terrorism proselytized by relentless Christian fundamentalists who practice "IN YOUR FACE" accusatory evangelism is not only unhealthy and emotionally damaging to society, but it's also spitting in the very face of Jesus himself, and what he stood for. Divine or not.

It's hypocrisy on a level greater than the Pharisees.

So yes, even non-believers of this religion have very legitimate grounds for wanting to expose the flaws and fallacies associated with this highly proselytizing and insinuating religion.

You can't accuse the world of being "sinners" and "turning from God" and then act like they have no right to question the validity of these accusations and to voice their sincere opinion of why they feel that these charges are totally without any merit whatsoever.

I stand firmly behind my conviction that these ancient stories have no merit.

And at the very LEAST, it makes perfect sense to doubt them, question them, and even dismiss them as unreasonable superstitious rumors.

The very charge that to not believe in these rumors constitutes a blatant refusal to "obey" God is utter nonsense.

That is a lie that must be stopped.

It simply isn't true. There are very sound and rational reasons for dismissing these ancient myths as being nothing more than unreasonable superstitious rumors.

Telling people otherwise is truly "emotional terrorism".

I agree. There's nothing anywhere in the Old Testament that even remotely refers to Jesus, much less Jesus actually being in the Old Testament.

Moreover, according to the gospels Jesus didn't even agree with the immoral teachings that were in the Old Testament. He clearly taught opposite moral values. He taught people not to judge each other. He taught people not to stone others to death for their supposed sins. He taught people not to seek an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but rather that they should turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass against them.

So not only was Jesus not in the Old Testament, but he clearly didn't even agree with what it had to teach.

I'm not surprised that you totally avoid the real issues and just continue to post utterly feeble excuses that make absolutely no sense.

Here's the bottom line Cowboy,...


~~~~

The bottom line is extremely simple.

Am I rejecting my creator?

No.

This religion claims that I am.

Therefore, this religion is necessarily a big fat lie.

Q.E.D.


You keep talking as though someone is "rejecting" God.

But that is the fatal flaw in the religion.

That is the lie.

You keep talking like as if you expect people to believe that lie.

He created them with a gross inability to resist sin because he loves them?

That makes no sense to me.




I thought this God didn't want puppets?

If God wanted to simply control people he could have just created puppets.

Again, you're explanations make no sense to me.



But if they already have the ability to choose to be highly moral people, then they could do that on their own.

You are proclaiming here that they must make a choice to follow the teachings of Jesus, otherwise their acceptance of him would be in vein.

But that flies in the very face of the whole assumption that they aren't supposed to have the ability to choose to be good people on their own in the first place.

You are basically demanding that they can indeed make that choice and do this very thing that they are not supposed to be able to do on their own merit.

Clearly you aren't understanding the paradox involved.



Again, you are totally missing the paradox in this.

If that were the true reason then there would be absolutely no reason for Jesus to offer people 'grace' via having made a sacrifice on their behalf.

If the "true reason" as you claim is that people simply want to love God and do the right thing, and they can CHOOSE to do this freely on their own merit. Then that is all that would be required.

There would be no need to offer such people 'grace' because they would be making this decision on their own merit.

This is the paradox of this religion Cowboy.

You just don't seem to be understanding the fundamental paradox here.



Again, you are apparently totally oblivious to the paradox in this.

What sense does it make to claim that Jesus "defeated" death for anyone when the criteria for avoiding spiritual death is to simply choose to be a highly moral person and love the creator?

The only people who can 'defeat' death in this situation would be the people who actually make that choice. They would need to 'defeat' spiritual death themselves.

If Jesus had defeated death for other people by having made their choices for them, then Jesus would have defeated death for everyone. Without exception. There would be nothing left for anyone to do.

But that's not what this religion is attempting to claim. People are still required to make a choice otherwise they will face spiritual death.

So it's a paradoxical story.

Jesus cannot be said to have "saved" anyone, if their ultimate salvation is up to THEM. If they are required to make a choice in order to "save themselves" then Jesus is not saving anyone. And the whole story becomes a moot point.



But you just demanded earlier that we do become puppets on a stick once we give ourselves over to Jesus. That he takes control of our lives.

It makes no sense to even speak of FREE WILL, if you're going to demand that people have no FREE WILL to simply accept God on their own FREE WILL merit.

But in order to be able to do that, they would have to be able to make that choice on their own. If they require Jesus to take control of their lives before they can do that, then they clearly have no FREE WILL at all.

You're totally missing the paradoxes involved in this.

You can't have a religion proclaiming that people have FREE WILL whilst simultaneously telling them that they don't even have the capacity to choose to be good righteous people via their own FREE WILL merit and FREE WILL choice.

That's an oxymoron.

~~~~~

Also, how did Satan get so lucky as to not require that anyone use their FREE WILL to choose him?

Why is Satan the default winner in this religion?

No one is required to "choose" Satan via their FREE WILL choice. This cult has automatically made that choice the supposed DEFAULT.

If this were truly about FREE WILL choice, you couldn't simply talk about choosing God. You'd need to talk about choosing Satan as well.

A person would need to make a conscious FREE WILL choice to side with Satan in this religion if it's all about making FREE WILL choices.

Again, it's an oxymoron to proclaim that people who are not making a FREE WILL choice to accept the so-called "grace" of the sacrificial demigod of this religion, then must be making a FREE WILL choice to serve some demonic fallen angel.

~~~~

IMHO Cowboy, this religion is basically an extremely hateful cult.

Why do I feel that way? Because it is the ultimate emotional terrorism in terms of a brainwashing scheme.

It's basically saying this: "Either join and support the religious and lifestyle bigotries of our religious/political cult, or we will proclaim that you are rejecting your creator, you are rejecting LOVE and all that is GOOD, and you are making a FREE WILL choice to join forces with an evil demonic demon who is the ENEMY of God himself!

That is extreme emotional and social terrorism.

It's a cult that truly attempts to socially and emotionally execute anyone and everyone who refuses to join and support it.

And it does all of this using the name of Jesus as the weapon of emotional terrorism.

It's the saddest religion I know of in this respect.

~~~~~

There is no way that I could ever imagine any truly divine benevolent supreme deity being associated with such a negative approach to spirituality.

~~~~~

This religion, in all its gory details, simply has to be the product of men. It's either just unbridled superstition, or an outright underhanded creation of brainwashing deceit created for the express purpose of driving the "fear of God" into the masses for the purpose of controlling them politically.

There is one very simple "TRUTH" that any sentient human being can ask themselves to reveal the falsity of this religion and it is simply this:

"Am I choosing to side with, and serve, a demonic fallen angel?"

If their answer is no, then they can know that this religion is false.

If their answer is yes, then would it even matter for them whether the religion is true. Obviously they would have already made their choice to side with, and serve, a demonic fallen angel anyway.

So the only people this religion could possibly even be true for are people who have already chosen to side with, and serve, a demonic fallen angel.

Anyone else should be able to clearly see that the claims being made by this religious/political theology are necessarily FALSE.

~~~~

The bottom line is extremely simple.

Am I rejecting my creator?

No.

This religion claims that I am.

Therefore, this religion is necessarily a big fat lie.

Q.E.D.

I absolutely agree with this line of thinking. There are so many other ways to view this as well.

For example, the idea is that no moral man is truly worthy of heaven (or God's Love) on his own merit. Every man who is permitted access to the Kingdom of God is only granted that privilege by grace, not by merit.

Moreover, not only would they be granted this privilege by grace, but a price had to be paid as well. The very son of God had to physically suffer much anguish and pain and experience death and a trip to hell in order to pay for this grace.

So what does this mean? This means that every mortal soul who manages to qualify for this grace will be granted into an eternal paradise where the only reason their unworthy butt is there is because God had to have his son nailed to a pole on their behalf. Moreover, they weren't even allowed in until they have acknowledge this to be a fact. In other words, the only way to get into heaven is to acknowledge that you indeed do not deserve to be there.

This is a bit of an oxymoron in any case. Why would a God be inviting undeserving people into his eternal paradise? People who are not worthy of being there on their own merit?

And what has truly changed about them? If they were unworthy people before they accepted this sacrifice to "save" their souls, then they are probably still unworthy people afterward. After all, people supposedly cannot become worthy in their own right no matter what they do. Surely accepting having God's son butchered on a pole to pay for their sins cannot make them worthy. If they could become worthy by something as simple as this, then surely they could also become worthy by simply deciding to straighten up their own lives and become nice people.

What would be the difference? In the end they are the ones who supposedly need to make a choice about something. Why force them to choose to accept a bloody sacrifice on their behalf? Why not just simply ask them to choose to be good people? That actually makes more sense overall.

But no, that can't work in this religion because the religion has already shot itself in the foot by proclaiming that no man can make the choice to be a nice person on his own.

Therefore people who are choosing to accept this sacrificial atonement for their sins, obviously can't even choose to be good people if they wanted to. Therefore they necessarily must be making this choice for one of two other reasons:

1. They fear spiritual death and are looking for a way to avoid it.

2. They lust for eternal life and are desperately seeking this gift.

They can't simply be choosing to be good people, because if they could make that choice they could have done that without the need for any blood sacrifice having been made on their behalf.

All that would be required to gain entrance to heaven is to choose to be a good person. But that is totally forbidden! This religion demands that this is totally out of the question and you can never gain access to eternal life or the Kingdom of God by just choosing to be a nice person. This violates what is required to gain membership into this cult.

~~~~

This is why we can know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this religion is indeed nothing more than a man-made cult. It simply has to be. No all-wise, loving, benevolent God would have ever created a situation where the only way to gain access to his eternal paradise could only be had either through a fear of spiritual death and a desire to avoid it, or through a lust for eternal life and a desire to win it through grace.

A God who is supposedly concerned with people choosing to live moral lives, would have designed a system where people could do just that. They would need to earn their own grace by choosing to be highly moral people. Not by choosing to accept some blood sacrifice made on their behalf because they are innately incapable of becoming moral creatures.

The very idea that humans are incapable of becoming moral creatures on their own merit can only suggest that their creator failed to give them the necessarily resources to become such creatures.

So this whole religion is basically dependent upon the ineptitude of their fictitious creator to even work.

It simply can't be made to work with a creator who actually creates beings who are incapable of doing what is required to appease his desires on their own merit.

It's clearly just a cult scam that tries to convince people that if they don't join and support the cult they will be shunned by the creator of the universe and face spiritual death whilst all the members of the cult happily move on to eternal life in paradise.

This cult even threatens people with the unquenchable hell fire, wailing, and the gnashing of teeth, and eternal damnation if they fail to join the cult and support all of its superstitions.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an supposed "benevolent" God, because there is nothing "benevolent" about this religion. It s vicious fear-based cult. Join the cult, support their specific religious and lifestyle bigotries in the name of God, or be damned to hell!

And there is no other way to get to God!

All other religions are proclaimed to be false.

But don't you dare proclaim that this religion is false or you'll be accused of "religion bashing" and "insulting" its members.

Yet it has absolutely no problem at all with "bashing" all other religions by proclaiming that they are necessarily false because this cult claims to be the "only way" to get to God.

It's a hypocritical oxymoron in so many ways that it's truly unbelievable that it has gotten such a foothold on the imagination of humanity.

And to think that people actually believe in it on "faith" is even more astounding.

I would never wish to place my "faith" in a religion that proclaims that I can't even chose to be a good person on my own merit.

Why would what Satan thinks be important to anyone? Especially to God? Why would God have a need to prove anything to Satan?




A victory over death for us?

That makes no sense Cowboy.

If this God is supposed to be the supreme designer and architect of life and he didn't want people to die he could have just created them in a way where they wouldn't die.

The whole premise of this religion is that "sin" is what causes spiritual death. The wages of sin is death.

However, "sin" is nothing more than disobedience to the will of God. Therefore death is nothing other than a punishment for disobeying this God.

If this God wanted to do away with death for humans all he would need to do is change his mind about his punishment for disobedience.

Moreover, what would be the point in having his son supposedly "die" to pay for people's disobedience?

Especially when, as you point out, Jesus even defied spiritual death and was supposedly resurrection and ascended to Heaven. He clearly wouldn't have paid the price of spiritual death for anyone.

Being resurrected from physical death and then ascending to Heaven as a living spirit is precisely what Christians dream of.

So Jesus wouldn't have "paid" any price for anyone's sins. On the contrary he got won the ultimate prize. Not only did he receive everlasting spiritual life, but he's supposedly even gets to be the Kind of Kinds and Lord of Lords even in Heaven.

Sounds like he won the prize that Satan was after.

And you're acting like as if he "died"?

Wasn't even attributed to Jesus to having said something like, "Don't worry about those who can kill the body, but rather those who can destroy the spirit?"

Well, a dead body is meaningless. Only a dead spirit would be the ultimate prices to pay. And clearly according to these stories Jesus did not pay the ultimate price of spiritual death.

Therefore, he could not possibly have page the "Wages of Sin" for anyone.

Again, the story simply doesn't make sense. It's full of holes.

Trying to explain the story as if it holds any verbatim merit always ends in a paradox and contradiction.

The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that the story is just a man-made superstition. Now that makes sense.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

This truly can't work Cowboy.

Just stop and think about it for even a brief moment.

Can an all-powerful invincible God ever LOSE?

No, you would never stand for God losing at anything.

Therefore, it would be impossible for God to have lost his only begotten son if it was God's PLAN that he should be resurrected.

There could never have been the remotest chance that Jesus could have "Lost" to Satan, or to anything.

So to even suggest that he could have lost, or was ever at risk at any moment, would suggest that God could potentially LOSE at something.

So the story makes no sense in light of the fact that this God is supposed to be invincible can could never LOSE at anything.

It makes no sense to say that a God "defeated" something that could have never been a threat to him in the first place.

That flies in the very face of what this God is supposed to be.

Therefore, these stories have a totally unsolvable problem.

Is there a solution?

Sure.

But only ONE.

The stories must necessarily be man-made myths.

That's the only solution that solves this problem.